Pages

Monday, November 3, 2008

Dear MRA Infestation and Glenn Sacks Worshippers

Yes I meant to use the word infestation because that essentially is what you are. When you enter a feminist blog your commentary reminds of cockroaches, swarming everywhere disgusting everyone with your presence. Your commentary is akin to finding a mouse turd in the bottom of a bowl from which you have been eating. Your what about the mehnz wail is more annoying than a three year old hopped up on sugar, screaming their lungs out because they don't want to take the nap that they so desperately need.The constant na na na na I can't hear you with fingers steadfastly plugging your ears is ridiculous.

I knew daring to use thename Glenn Sacks in a title of a blog postwould bring a few of you basement dwellers out, but your determination to pound your chest and shake your fist at reason is truly astounding. I know that you have become attached to the penis between your legs, but to allow it do all the thinking for you is ridiculous. I am not sure if you are aware, but it is meant for urination and sexual activity, not as a second brain.

I am tired of your false statistics, and cavemen like behaviour. As much as you would love to return to a time when you could burn women at the stake to steal our property and silence us, feminism is here to stay. The most ironic part about this is that feminism is a response to the violence, raping, murdering, exploitation and marginalization that men have been engaged in since the beginning of time. That's right asshole, the very reason feminism exists is because of your virulent hatred of women.

Right about now you are probably calling me a misandrist. OOOOHHH yeah man hater is really going to hold a lot of weight with me when I have to think twice about walking through a parking lot at night because some sicko might think he has the right to rape me because I have a VAGINA. Misandrist might upset me if I didn't have to worry week to week how to survive because women make 77 cents to every dollar that men make, which translates into poverty throughout our entire lifetime. For senior women, women with disabilities, and women of colour the gap is even wider.

Right, what was I thinking bringing up statistics in this conversation. Unless it is some invented, or somehow manipulated social statistic that magically proves that men are more disenfranchised than women it doesn't count as truth. I honestly wonder how many of you believe that Oswald killed Kennedy with a single bullet as well? Hey do you make yearly trips to the southern shore of Groom Lake to convene with the other conspiracy theorists? Honestly the idea that men are somehow threatened, or living a life devoid of privilege is about as ridiculous as the idea that Holocaust did not happen, or that no airplane flew into the pentagon on 911.

I would call you all crazy, but I don't believe it is fair to the intellectually challenged to conflate your idiocy with their disability. What I see most in your anger and self righteous indignation is fear. That's right fear. The idea that men and women can exist equally side by side threatens you. I understand a world where your penis is not more valuable than an arm or a leg is earth shattering, but if you were actually people of value such a thought would not be threatening to begin with.

185 comments:

I know when engaging w/ an MRA, if they bring up Sacks name, it's over. There is no level of reason that is going to get through their skulls. All the stats in the world and real life proof isn't going to prove to them that their theories assume that the playing field is level to start w/, when in truth, feminists have been fighting to even get on the fucking field in the first place.

I have spent too much time as the punching bad for fucking MRAs. I have about zero tolerance for their regurgitated half truths. You, again, are a far more patient person that I am.

I have enjoyed this blog from time to time, but it appears you suffer from the hatred you wish to alay on others. Stereotypes, gender slurs and fear of discourse are not the tenants of feminism contrary to what you may have come to believe. I am sorry your fragile ego has become so threatened by men (and women) asserting a gender viewpoint on ads, no matter how much you may disagree with them. Your response mirrors totalitarianism tactics which assumes to flex an ideology and eliminate all dissent. Farewell, and thank you for the musings of past. I wish you well and hope you find peace with your anger.

what condescension from a supposed past commenter! and the silliness - to equate totalitarianism (when a state controls nearly all aspects of life) to a blogger's control over her own blog on an internet with thousands of other websites to read and comment on!

I suppose arimom doesn't get all "totalitarian" on ants and spiders and vermin in her home, but allows them to run free, expressing themselves wherever they like? does she allow random strangers to accost her and say whatever they want?

I'm sorry these clowns have so much energy to pour into harassing and clogging up one of the truly righteous blogs I read.

haha, I love it. You getting so mad means something. If you think Glenn Sacks is an idiot, then what he said would not upset you. But, you see the logic in his words, so you are afraid. I understand at least that much about you. I also see your Penis Envy shining through. I was a long time reader till I just read this. It is now clear you are nothing more than ramblings of a woman who is upset you were born with a vagina. And odds are, you dressed like a whore and got raped, and want to blame it on the person who did it, when you know... It was your fault for putting yourself out there in the first place. Do not blame men for your own personal issues. You sound like a mini-Hitler crying because "it's not fair other groups of people can also have a voice!". I pity your sons, you call them "darling little boys that fill my life with hope". Hope of what? that you teach them since they have a penis they must be punished? It's women like you that make the entire gender look like morons. The "Mans World" Died a long time ago, we earned equal rights, so you are now left with turning your rage to ANYTHING you can complain about. How about you do something meaninful? I agree that men have it bad now, and it's getting worse for them. However, I think only non-sexist people can see that. I think I'm going to read about logical people from now on, so enjoy your ramblings, I'll be reading Glenn Sacks now. Thanks for turning me onto him.

Wow. I'm out of touch with all this, but Renee, it cannot be said you are without passion or that you mince words.

I've been working quite hard of late and don't know who Glenn Sacks is (I confess to my ignorance). I don't know any of the particulars. But I do know women are still targets of discrimination. I also know there are some who go too far the other way and, well....well, we both know what I'm talking about.

I also know that I've agreed with almost everything you've written. So, I'll look into this Glenn Sacks thing. But I suspect I know where I'll fall on this one.

Oh man, when I read the acronym "MRA", my mind immediately went to "Marketing Research Association", and having never heard of Glenn Sacks, I thought this would be a hotly debated thread on how many blog/email sites provide "free" hosting/service by giving away information on what is posted to such marketing organizations. I was all set to comment on one of my favorite hot-button issues!

Instead, I have to read about some douchebag organization campaigning to bring us back to the 19th century? Lame, MRA, just lame. I can't believe that there are still organizations like this championing regressive agendas that prevent us from talking about what OUGHT to be more relevant, topical discussions, by simply refusing to resign themselves to the mire of the past. Disgraceful.

I love how every Sacks supporter claims to be a "long time reader", now leaving. As though, to begin with, a person holding their misogynist views would find your entries good reading without leaving the comments they have been recently, and as though you give a shit if people who support that kind of sexist bullshit stop reading your blog.

Wow I just went back and looked at your other thread. I didn't realize how infested with these trolls it had become! Damn! I hate it when people try to take an issue and make it all about them--this isn't a damn race to see whose the most oppressed and see whose face belongs on what ads. It just makes me damned ill.

Blimey. You stop reading for the weekend, and look what happens. No only has the person who chose to assure me that I was wrong about my sexuality taken their bat and ball and gone home, but suddenly some really scary people have turned up. Are there really people out there who genuinely believe that women are more likely to be the perpetrtors of dv than the victim? I just can't understand it.

And now all this accusing you of being hate-filled, while spewing stuff about rape and dying alone. There's a level of violence in these comments that go beyond vehement disagreement with your pov. God knows, I don't always agree with you, but this is disturbing. As a card-carrying mentalist, I get to use the Forbidden Words, so I will - these people are borderline psychotic. I don't think it's healthy for any of us, your actual regular readers, to be trying to engage with them. You have become just another element in their distress, and it's actually pretty unfair for us to be feeding that. May I suggest we just ignore them, don't respond to them, and maybe they'll all go away? By all means argue with the apparently sane ones, but lets all back away from the crazies.

These people really think they are righteous - that men have it "rough" and those "horrible" gender-hating penis-envying feministes are "after" them.

What resonated with me most in this post is your comment that you have to worry about walking through a dark parking lot. I wrote a blog recently about that very thing - I was walking my dogs (2 german shepherds) at 4 a.m., something I started doing when I began crating them recently (due to mass domicile destruction, sighs) - and what struck me in the dark of the early morning was the ABSENCE of fear ... which made me realize how we have internalized fear and caution and made it so much part of our daily lives we really do not notice it ...until it is GONE ...(after all, I realized with two big shepherds, NO ONE was going to go me) - wake up people and smell the coffee, there is still a long road ahead for true equality.

I didn't see any really troll type posts here Arum. I will admit I am here checking out the blog for the first time, but there seems to be a lot of hatred and rude behavior on this blog. I didn't see much of it coming from Sacks suporters (unless someone deleted them all).

I did see some mucked up facts though on your side of things.

I really like hearing the other side of things, but all this hate and name calling that goes on gets really silly. Perhaps some of the more polite posters could actually go read glens site for themselves and then post there.

@everyone who is supposedly a "long time reader" and has decided to flounce, or who engages in victim blaming, scare tactics, or accusations of totalitarianism:

The internet is NOT a democracy. This is Renee's space, where she has every right to say what she will, and ban anyone she feels like. The fact that you think you have some Spaghetti Monster given right to be here and be heard here is an indication of your feelings of privilege. Don't like what she said? than don't read it.

We don't come to your websites and troll, getting all our internet friends to dog-pile your threads, or threaten you. So what the fuck makes you think its okay to come here and do that?

oh yeah...privilege.

cue entitled whining from the "man"-children.

What interests me most about these idiots is something Echidne wrote in her post about The Planet of the Guys:(http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html#1951879770820286862):

Basically that men are seen as default humanity, and anything that actually displays a half and half of men and women is seen as "overrun" with women, even though it represents accurately the amount of women v. men in a population. Its as if men are seen as human, and women as a subset of humans.

Women are invisible as people but highly visible as women, so a small representation of women seems like a lot, even when it is nowhere near actually representative of real world demographics.

These poor assholes think that anything that is not in the majority about men must mean that they are being left out, and thats just not fair.

All I can say is, if they really want to be oppressed, then we can trade. Anytime. I will gladly take the right to total autonomy, and they can have the chance to be treated as public property.

Anyone want to take bets on how long it would take them to come running back to beg for their old life?

Now, none of this is to say that men don't experience gender based oppression. However, most of that is coming from overly confining gender roles that are pushed by these very so-called rights advocates. They don't actually work to make life better for men at all, they just reinforce gender roles, and shun anyone who doesn't fall in line. They confuse "right" with "privilege" and consequently only make things worse for everyone by trying to take rights away from others instead of expanding rights for all. Maybe they think that rights are limited, so if some people have them, then that means others must lose them.

Thank you for standing up to them Renee. It takes guts, and a steady hand. You have both.

I can see how those ads might offend. But I'm starting to think being offended is what's needed to get some people to pay attention. And I feel like in today's world it is very easy to offend. Say "the war is a mistake" and apparently military people will think you're not honouring them or appreciating their work and they won't vote for you! Using children is a different idea that is bound to make people uncomfortable. What I don't get is the continual assistance not just by MRAs but by many that we should also focus on woman to man violence. I have to think that those people haven't actually absorbed the statistics about how unequal the violence is because it is shocking. When we're talking about this, perhaps the natural thing is to want to treat men and women equally but after absorbing the statistics, that is just not possible. They are shocking and I encourage anyone who hasn't to read them and really think about them. -Lyndsay

I seriously doubt feminisim is here to stay. Feminism is dying, if not already dead; especially when 3rd wavers are talking 2nd wave issues like dometic violence and rape which were critical to the begining of the 2nd wave nearly 40 years ago. Of course that's not to say that these issues are not relevant today, it just that 3rd wavers have nothing new to say, and that is why feminism is dead.-Ben

The fact is, women are injured by by domestic violence far more than men. But when you examine the objective (non-MRA, non-feminist) data, you'll see that women also initiate a fair amount of domestic violence, too, without indicia that it was initiated for self-defense. See, e.g., http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941 Some shelters are now becomeing sufficiently enligthened to accept male victims. But yes, it's predominantly a woman's issue -- women are hurt by dv a lot more than men -- but by pretending it's SOLELY a woman's issue, these ads don't tell the full dv story. Maybe the ad should have three pictures like they have ane one where the genders are reversed.

I'll give Family Place this much: they know how to stir controversy, and to play to their pre-existing base.

My personal opinion on the domestic violence ad issue is that they probably ought to put up ads pointing out domestic violence against both sexes, rather than take down those depicting domestic violence against women. To do justice to the actual ratios of wife-beating vs. husband-beating, they may only need one or two token woman-attacks-man cases.

As for men's rights activism in general...I think the concept that men are now oppressed thanks to the successes of second-wave feminism is misguided. Yes, men are depicted as oafs a lot in the popular culture, but the message often sent is that they need smart, sensible women to clean up after them all their lives as a result of their oafishness, therefore being able to just kick back and relax in the home like they could in the 1950s. Only difference is that Father no longer know best. Now Mother knows best, and that, supposedly, is why she (STILL) has to do all the &^%*($% house and childcare work. They changed the narrative so that things (gender roles) can stay the same even after women insisted and proved that they're not inferior. "Ok, you are superior...at sammich-making, so go make me a sammich!"

There is one way, though, in which I do think men need to be liberated: from the restrictive gender roles of trying to be as un-womanlike as possible.

Your blog post is quite melodramatic and over the top. Calling people cockroaches for disagreeing with you is an immature and flailing move.

The original issue was the DART ads. The reason a lot of people (not just Glenn Sacks, who by the way you hurl a lot of misguided anger at) are against the DART ads is that they label men as abusers and violent even though they haven't committed a crime. Several posters have said that if you don't want to be called an abuser then you shouldn't commit abuse, but ads like this leave most/all men as labeled abusers anyway regardless of what they actually do, which is unfortunate for the 99% of men who haven't done anything wrong. The labeling of an entire gender regardless of what they do is exactly what you as a self-identified feminist allege you oppose. So yes, what about "teh menz" who are being unjustly villified. Why shouldn't people speak out against an ad like that? Do you care? You should.

Also, according to the rules of the internet, since you brought up the holocaust first you lose at the internet. Thanks! :-D

Oh yeah, and since when does having nothing new to say mean that a movement is dead, when those old things are still issues?

Was the Civil Rights movement dead after the Civil War because black men had the official legal right to vote, own whatever property they could afford (rather than just that which white people were willing to cast off), share facilities with white people, and have due process in court, when in practice these rights were still mostly denied to them for the next 100 years? Just because they were crying out for the same things they wanted 100 years before, did that mean their interests were dead and irrelevant? Heck no! And guess what: Black people STILL face housing discrimination, discrimination in the legal system (e.g. racial profiling by cops), (de-facto) segregation, and suppression of their right to vote, not to mention abject poverty. Maybe not quite as extreme as before, but it's still all there. So if they keep bringing up the same issues, it's not that their movement is dead, it's unfinished. Same with feminism. Women are still raped and blamed for it, so we're going to keep bringing up that issue.

The ads are talking about abusers. Unless you are an abuser, it is not talking about you. It does not say or imply that all men are abusive. It says that this organization provides help for people who have been abused.

Wow. I am a female and I'm also an everyday reader of Glenn Sacks blog and a sometime poster. I was never aware of the gender bias towards women (particularly in the family court system) until I married a divorced man with two children. His first wife was most definitely abusive towards him (physically and mentally) and was even abusive to his employer...so much so that they told her not to call there or set foot on the property anymore. That being said, I find these ads to be EXTREMELY offensive for two reasons. One...they most certainly do imply that men are always the perpetrators of violence, and women are always the victim. This is simply not true. The second reason is that I believe that sending this message out there for children to absorb is about as irresponsible as it gets. I have two beautiful stepchildren and we have a daughter together, and I certainly do not want my daughters growing up thinking that their husbands will kill them one day or that my son will grow up believing that he will beat his wife. What kind of a message is this sending?

Can I also say that in reading this blog and some of the comments, I am really wondering if this is really what feminism is all about? I was under the impression that feminists wanted equality for all. Unfortunately, that's not the impression I'm getting here. All I see here is hate and negativity and vulgar language. All things I don't see on Glenn Sacks blog. He truly does stand for equality for all, and if any of you care to take the time to visit his site with an open mind, you'll see that he's not the monster that some would have you believe. It's your choice ladies...do you want to stand for true equality, or the brand of equality that's represented on this blog?

As I said in my post these people are an infestation. They are not interested in debate, they are only interested in pushing their anti-woman agenda. Notice how they try to bully me for moderating my own blog as though they have some sort of entitlement here. I am not in the habit of deleting comments or even heavily moderating this blog, but when it starts to become an infestation, yes I will hit the delete button. My regular readers deserve better than to have to read such disgusting speech.

Although your average man is not going to kill his wife, statistically speaking, if you do face such things as rape or murder, it's usually by an acquaintance or an intimate. So thinking your husband will NOT kill you but some random dude in a hoodie on the street WILL kill you is naive and foolish. Yet that's how most of us are brought up to think. It's always the "other" who's demonized. The stranger (though most violence is between acquaintances). The person of another race (though most violence is intra-racial). The foreigner (when we're getting royally screwed over by our own government, and our own government is committing countless atrocities against innocent foreigners).

Funny how ONE BOY in an ad, who is depicted as an individual who will do something in the future, is perceived as representative of "all men" in the eyes of the MRA whiners. Why, exactly, do you fools take it so personally when male-on-female violence is acknowledged? Is it because you identify with abusers? If you're not a woman-beater, there is no reason for you to be offended by efforts to end violence against women. But here we are, with y'all up in arms because a creative campaign is talking about something very disturbing: SOME little boys grow up to abuse and/or murder their intimate partners. Either you think there's something wrong with that and want to be an ally to women, or you don't, and want to silence groups who seek to end the violence. It's obvious which group y'all are in.

Ben, domestic violence and rape are very CURRENT issues because scumbag misogynists like you and your buds just keep on attacking and raping women! If you're sick of hearing about DV and rape, tell your friends to stop beating and raping.

I'm a regular reader and sometimes-commenter. I know that my comments are sometimes critical. I sometimes wonder if my criticisms cross the line for acceptable comments here in your space, though I assume that if that were so, you'd tell me. In any case, it might be worth your while (and be good for your readers) if you'd post a more explicit, detailed commenting policy.

Oh Ben, it's time to put on your big boy underpants. SarahMC asked perfectly reasonable questions in a heated tone, you are certainly man enough to deal with one upset little lady, aren't you? It's actually perfectly reasonable for women to get upset about things like rape and domestic violence, after all. We deal with it so much.

Nothing new to say? Why would we NEED anything new to say, when the old stuff hasn't been resolved?

Feminism isn't going to die until it has solved the problems it set out to fix. Furthermore, it's not like feminism was even born 40 years ago. Feminism has existed ever since gender inequality existed. You just probably didn't recognize it. Heck, I didn't recognize it, because it wasn't like the feminism I know today. Choosing to be a nun was an early form of feminism. Now, I have serious problems with organized religion, but I can also see why a woman in the middle ages, who did not necessarily get a choice in when she married or who she married, might make a choice to be a nun. I'm glad I live in a world where those aren't my only choices, but it's fair to say that convent life gave women more autonomy and education than marriage did, back in those days.

Feminism has always existed, and always will exist, just in different ways. But until the world is suddenly fixed, it's not going to go away. It is everywhere, whether you like it or not. It cannot die, it cannot be killed, because it is so essential, because I don't think there has been an age in history where feminists have not existed, even if they didn't have a name for their feminism. Feminists have always had something relevant to talk about, and probably always will, because who knows if we will ever fix the problems we encounter?

@Charles I wrote this post regarding commenting. As I said, my intent is to leave this space open as much as possible for disagreement. I simply do not want Womanist Musings to turn into an echo chamber of assent. Free and open discussion is extremely important to me and I have learned much from the commenters here. We cannot all agree but if conversation does not happen no progress can be made. Womanist Musing is one of the most loosely moderated feminist blogs and it is my hope to keep it that way.

In terms of the recent infestation, (I refuse to call it anything else) anything I deem anti-woman, overly triggering, rape apologism or a direct personal attack will be removed without apology. Free and open debate does not give anyone the right to "other" or malign women in any way shape or form.

I have allowed these MRA trolls to post their disgusting lies even though I know that they do not add to the conversation when I deem that they do not constitute a direct attack.

I have been called a whore, told I was going to die alone, they brought my children into the debate, and was told I deserve to be raped. I simply will not allow that to stay on my blog. Not only do I deserve better than that but so does every single person who came here looking for a legitimate conversation.

some of you keep talking about men raping women ect, and women getting beat by men.

How come you care about the woman being raped by a man, and the woman beat by a man. But you do not care about the lesbian who beats their partner (statistics on that are very very high), the man beat by the woman, or the woman raped by the woman? Look at prison stats, rape in female prison happens WAY more than rape in a male prison. and female prison rape is much more brutal.

how come you do not care about those groups at all?

The only reason I ask is because it seems like most of you do not want to remove gender and solve the issue for everyone, right now you only want to protect women (being they are the victim more). And even ignore the women who suffer at the hands of other women. What about when men become the victim more because we finally put an end to men beating women? will you support ads saying "I will grow up to cut the penis off of my husband"? Cause when it comes to sexual mutilation, I think everyone agress the women have that one hands down.

again, if this sounds like me starting a fight, it's not. I honestly want to know. when are mens rights and womens rights going to drop this stupid war between us, join forces and make the world better for everyone? We bitch about how lame and childish it is for dems and repubs to attack each other, we keep asking "why dont you stop being stupid and work together?!". Well, what about us? We BOTH want the same thing... Equlity for all, dont we?

"In terms of the recent infestation, (I refuse to call it anything else) anything I deem anti-woman, overly triggering, rape apologism or a direct personal attack will be removed without apology. Free and open debate does not give anyone the right to "other" or malign women in any way shape or form. "

That right there says a lot to me. what about anything anti-male? How come in your eyes it's okay to bash men, but not women? I thought people who held sexist thoughts like that ARE the problem... You can not complain when someone trashes women, if you trash men. Remember, you claim to want "equality" not the seat of the Queen. I suggest you act the part before you over do it and just look more like a child stomping their feet on the ground.

Take this as an attack, or take it the way its meant... A serious suggestion

Sarah MC--I actually thought that the ad meant to say that boys who are abused by their fathers are more likely to be abusers when they're older, thereby making the boy not a stand-in for all male people everywhere but a stand-in for all the abused children who are being indoctrinated into a cycle of violence.

Oh, and for all the MRAs giving "suggestions" and saying that Renee is too harsh or bitchy or whatever, while pretending to be good guys who don't hate women--do you realize how demeaning that sort of behavior is? Her space, her words, her rules.

I'm pretty convinced that they DO realize how demeaning it is. And they just want to silence Renee and others like her. Apparently, they think that she will LISTEN to them. har har har.

Renee, I wish I had the courage to keep my blog unmoderated. I have never had a troll infestation the way you have, and I really admire your willingness to keep things open. (Of course, I would understand if you felt the need to moderate at some point, but I'm just saying that I think you rock!)

How come you care about the woman being raped by a man, and the woman beat by a man. But you do not care about the lesbian who beats their partner (statistics on that are very very high), the man beat by the woman, or the woman raped by the woman? Look at prison stats, rape in female prison happens WAY more than rape in a male prison. and female prison rape is much more brutal.

how come you do not care about those groups at all?

This is a straw-man (straw feminist?) argument.

Everyone picks their battles. There are feminist groups who do indeed focus on just those things. And just because some people choose to prioritize certain issues, does not mean that the other issues don't matter.

http://www.feministing.com/prisons/

Besides, why must there be a hierarchy? both prison rape, and rape outside of prison are bad, based on one factor...you guessed it, RAPE! If someone says, "I care about ending rape and rape culture" that covers BOTH situations. Hence your fallacy.

this has been another episode of spot the straw-feminist. Thanks for playing!

Aww, someone has castration paranoia. How many women cut off their partners' dicks each year? Go ahead and find out; I'm waiting...Compare that to, say, the number of pregnant women who are abused and/or murdered by their partners (and that's just one small subset of victims). Okay then.

Anonymous (gee, so many of you share a username!) @ 39, your comment reveals how ignorant you are re: feminism. The subject of this blog post is a shelter that serves women, so that is what we are talking about. If the topic were prison rape (and despite your inaccurate claim, we feminists do address that), that's what we'd talk about. But like Dori said, thanks for playing.

The thing for me is that domestic violence isn't simply a boxing match between husband and wife. Obviously men assault women often and quite brutally, which needs constant work to reduce, and there's also women-on-man violence that is still difficult to deal with socially.

However there's more to domestic violence than that. There are many situations where women are physically dominant, such as in relation to children, female partners, the elderly and the disabled. These situations place women women in a role that men usually have with women, and it can obviously lead to abuse of that physical power.

Despite that, and while I'm definitely no expert on domestic violence campaigns, I don't recall a campaign featuring a woman as the perpetrator of abuse. I am sure that there have been in advertisements aimed at specific groups, such as the lesbian community. Mainstream campaigns seem to (almost) universally feature men as the perpetrators, and the campaign featured is no exception. I don't agree with that being a slur against men, it rightly points out the everyday nature of abuse, but rather letting female abusers remain in the shadows.

If you were to read any month of Glenn Sacks, you would find lots of posts that agree with feminists, and lots of posts that disagree with feminists. You would find a poster who is very opposed to domestic violence, and also opposed to sexism. You would definitely not find a blogger interested in leading people back to the 19th century.

You've heard a lot about Glenn Sacks, and you faithfully believed it and repeated it, but Renee, have you actually spent anytime reading his posts?

What's really funny is how unhinged this post of yours comes off, with tags added as a whipped frosting that say "misogyny."

Apart from your loyal fans, I don't think this post conveys the message you believe it conveys.

Actual long-time reader here, though a rare commenter. First off: *hugs* to Renee. You're fighting the good fight, and if you have the sycophantic hordes of whiny misogynist extraordinaire Glenn Sacks clutching themselves in a fit of castration anxiety, then it's a definite sign you're doing the right thing.

The concern trolls, the "what about the menz?!" chorus, and the d-bags who seem to think that their right to free speech requires that you be silent can crawl back to whatever woman-hating rock they slithered out from underneath.

Feminism is here to stay, no matter how many ridiculous, vicious hate-filled tantrums and illogical screeds they can come up with.

From data sources you trust, what would you estimate is:1) the fraction of the time each sex initiates domestic violence against the other2) the fraction of serious injuries sustained by each sex from domestic violence

When it happens and is ignored everyday.When (just one stat for ya, not to discount any others) Native American Indian women are three times as likely to be victims of domestic violence than any other group, and it is the least likely to be acted upon by the police or any authority.

Renee, SarahMC, it is positively earth shattering to witness the rabid sort of hypocrisy you all display.

SarahMC, you claim that some boys will grow up be abusers, indeed. Glenn Sacks and his supporters NEVER asserted otherwise. All he says is that SOME girls will also grow up to be abusers and that that should be depicted as well. What on earth is so terrible about that?

Moveover, the ad wrongly places ALL men in one group: abusers, suggesting ONLY the male half of the population is capable of abuse. Spreading such vicious lies and labelling all who protest against it as abuse apologist is nothing but hate mongering and discrimination of person based on their sex.

Glenn Sacks has not and should not advocate for similar ads targetting women because to pigeon-hole any person (male or female) in such a hateful manner is terrible thing to do and not something we should be exposing our children to.

Renee, you have a serious problem. You do not care for dissent. You say you do, but you're a liar. Your vision is warped by a gynocentric worldview that is no better than the monster (the patriarchy) you claim to be against. It is amazing that you and others here can not see the deep fallacy of your arguments.

You run calling people all sorts of dirty names, and referring to people's gentalia but when the venom you spew is returned to you, you all cry foul, you're a victim.

You all need to grow the hell up. Seriously. Strong, liberated women don't behave like spoilt, irate ninnies scared out of their wits when a man dares to stand up for their civil rights. What exactly are you girls afraid, hmm?

Oh no, if that was directed to me, I should clarify,I'm not in any way affiliated with MRAs, nor did I have any idea who Glenn Sacks was prior to this post. I'm just a student of satire with a mild interest in the politics of privilege. I actually started reading this blog about a month ago after following a link from The Uppity Brown Woman. I'm genuinely intrigued by the ads satirical intent, not trying to be snide and/or implicitly threatening. I ought to have contextualized that better.

@Anon48 it conveys exactly how I feel about MRA's. I have no tolerance for their lies, and obvious misogyny. Just reading the comments on the two threads regarding MRA and domestic violence has reinforced my belief that this is a movement to preserve male hegemony. BTW before you sit in judgment read a few more posts, this blog critiques feminism quite regularly. You see unlike the MRA movement what keeps feminism alive is that there is a constant critque whereas MRA's just have a head nodding, group think solidarity that does not provide any movement for growth. What aligns these men is their common hatred of women. There is no discussion about changing systemic inequalities. There is no discussion about the ways in which men of color are marginalized, the entire focus is hating women.

Renee@57, that's nonsense, and just more evidence of your own innate misandry. By your comments I strongly doubt you have spent any time at Glenn Sacks' blog outside of this incident. As a matter of fact did you even look at site AT ALL????

When it comes to gender issues, the man is a saint if I've ever seen one. He agrees FREQUENTLY with many feminist positions and features them on his blog. He has a regular commentary called the "The Feminist Dissident". It sole aim is to encourage dissent and insight from the "other" side. Many of his supporters often accuse him of being too chivalrous and soft on the most volatile of feminist assertions. Glenn Sacks has even deleted personal attacks that were made on you from his blog.

You obviously know NOTHING about Glenn Sacks, yet you find it necessary to spread lies about a man who has displayed more honour and humility than you've so far shown.

You're a disgrace to the purpose of your cause, and it is due to women like you why there's even a men's rights movement and why women like myself have fallen away from your so-called movement for equality.

You women don't believe in equality, you believe in behaving like spoilt brats who play the victim card at every opportunity while enjoying all the adult privileges.

Ugh. One of the most annoying themes I find in anti-anti-oppression comments is "You don't want equality, you want special privileges. You're equal already. Quitcherb*tchen." I see this with both race issues and sex issues. And at least with feminist issues, "BTW, I'm a woman too." I do think white, Western, and class privilege insulate a lot of us women from the worst of sexism. The combination of them is like heroin for the soul, putting us in a blissful but dangerous sleep. I VERY rarely, if ever, hear of black people denying that racism exists.

If the oppressed listened to that crap every time an oppressor said it, and quit their b*tchin', we'd still be in the nineteenth effing century, which is all fine and good for the oppressors as long as they're happy. There's only one way to get justice: insist on it. I think people have every right to point out continuing inequalities and fight to fix them. We're not equal already. We wouldn't be b*tchin' if we were.

1) I don't think I referenced myself in my original post at all, but if you insist that I've made it all about me there's nothing I'm going to be able to do to convince you otherwise. Could you point to that part that I "made it all about me" and the part where I exercised some sort of "privilege?"

2) Are you implying that the actual boy in the ad is or is going to become an abuser? What indication do we have that he will become one in the future? It's not just targeted at abusers, it's targeted at men in general. It's not even clear what they are advertising? Maybe a better ad would have read, "if you have been a victim of intimate partner violence contact us." Pointing out why this ad is not a good one does not make one a hater of women, please stop conflating the two.

I want to remind everyone who hasn't suffered as a victim of domestic/sexual violence, that this same hatred and filth that you have seen in the comments, is the same way that victims are treated by society at large...judges, police, media that are both male and female.

It is hard for those in the majority, white, male-privilege, to see outside of their box when the aren't constantly reminded of their box. They threaten us because they are afraid...just like the KKK.

Again, thank you Renee. When others stand up, it makes the journey a little more tolerable. Thank you 1000xs

"BTW before you sit in judgment read a few more posts, this blog critiques feminism quite regularly."------------A)Why call people roaches and rodents? Is it just to be as incendiary as possible to get more hits on your website? Why are you cautioning US on "rushing to judgement", when you bought the farm on "rushing to judgement?" Why do you hold us to a higher standard than you hold yourself to?

"You see unlike the MRA movement what keeps feminism alive is that there is a constant critque whereas MRA's just have a head nodding, group think solidarity that does not provide any movement for growth."------------------Actually you couldn't be more wrong. We have several very heavily debated disagreements.And I have found the head-nodding in spades on feminist websites.

The people cheering you on for dehumanizing tactics and "rushing to judgement" who are now decrying (falsely) labeling MRA's as doing the same is PRECISELY the total symbol of head-nodding toadyism that shows lack of independent thought herd mentality.

In fact one a recent thread somebody told me that feminists remind them of the borg (from Star Trek NG) because of their lack of independent ideas.

I may not agree with everything you say, but don't let some of the posters over at Glenn's blog get to you. Some of them are complete idiots (if such idiots are reading this post, that's right, I said...idiots). However, I didn't notice anyone denying that some men abuse women. They were objecting to painting all men with a negative brush. Still, I support keeping the ads in place.

The fact of the matter is that as a victim of DV, I would sympathise with whosoever have suffered from it too ... irrespective of gender.

You people are always crying blame the perpetrator not the victim, yet just because Glenn Sacks advocates that there are male DV victims too--and a lot more that the 1% you women stand for--and that they should be represented, THAT is hate and filth?

Because Glenn Sacks don't want young impressionable boys growing up to feeling bad about themselves because they were born with a penis, THAT is hate and filth?

Who really is spreading the hate and filth, here, RJ? Are you guys even listening to yourself? You're not being rational. You purport that ALL men are abusers, but by the same token refuse to address female abusers(in hetero and homosexual unions). What is wrong with you people?

You all claim to think that violence is bad ... but only when it is perpetrated against women? Why else would you protest the fact that people will find these ads offensive because of their one-sidedness?

Far more men die in battle and on the job than women, yet women are ALWAYS represented and mentioned when these individuals are being honoured. You don't hear MRAs whining about that, do you?

And to say that female victims are met with ridicule and suspicion in the wider society when it comes to DV is a blatant lie. ALL resources available in the DV industry are provided for women and women ONLY. Oprah, your nightly news, and basically all other media sides with the woman in the vast majority of DV cases.

Its only just a few days ago California declared such policies unconstitutional and discriminatory. And that's just in California. In 49 other states men are not recognised as victims of DV. In fact they're almost always laughed out of the police stations and shelters.

I'm still not getting HOW "all men" have been painted with the same broad brush. Where, exactly, has anyone said that all little boys grow up to be abusers, should hate themselves for having penises, etc? Should every single DV awareness campaign be accompanied by a disclaimer? "Not all men are abusers, of course!" Why is that necessary? Why are so many of you immediately jumping to the conclusion that, if ABUSERS are called out and criticized, then "all men" are being painted with the same brush? Is the word "men" synonymous with "abuser" to you folks? 'Cause you're the only ones who seem to interpret things that way.

WOW you would think that eventually these MRA Trolls would just run out of steam. Circular hateful arguments are not going to get you anywhere. Here is something that should be pretty easy to figure out, coming to a feminist site and calling women girls, whores and skanks does not prove that you are searching for equality.

Dear lord the what about the mehnz is thicker than French Canadian pea soup. This is my space and I will do what I want with it. No one invited a single one of you MRA visitors and if you feel unwelcome than rightly so.

For those of you that are hear representing Glenn Sacks you are doing a wonderful job proving that his message is anti-woman.

Yes I called you a bunch of cockroaches and I refuse to engage in debate with you. It would be like blowing kisses in the wind. I will only take a few precious breathes in this life, and I refuse to waste any of them arguing with you. To engage would be to admit that you have a valid point worthy of discussion.

To my regular readers, I am so sorry that you have had to tolerate this infestation. If only there was a blog version of raid, I would have freed us all of this human vermin. Take heart they will give up and recede like the tide to their own group think tank where they can freely engage in circle jerks and head nodding.

Just to clarify, I personally don't believe the ads paint all men with a negative brush. I'm simply pointing out that that is how MRA's on Sacks' blog feel as opposed to them sticking up for abusers. I never read a post from any of them that led me to believe that physical batterers should be given a break. I am disturbed by their support for Alec Baldwin (who is clearly verbally abusive).

Lastly, you may all have to "excuse" Davina. She is a woman who feels that men can do no wrong and is in desperate need of a wake-up call.

I'm passed being upset about all of this now. The more people comment on here, the more it becomes obvious that they don't give a damn about violence against women. They keep talking about men. This IS about violence against women (and children, who can be boys, or girls)...but they keep talking about men.

The women on here are the same type who would scorn their own child if she said her beloved father was abusing her. And the men on here...well, they show their colors very well. This IS about violence against women...but they keep talking about men.

It is like when White people say [in reference to Affirmative Action], but there are White men who can't get jobs and are underpaid...its get off the topic that Blacks continue to be oppressed...so they keep talking about White people.

To have your body, or your child's body invaded by a loved one, or stranger, while society mocks you for asking for it, or not being strong enough...it is a picture that those who don't want to get it, won't. And to the person who said that this is not true, and that I am telling A BLATANT LIE...fuck off, you don't know me.

It's 'cause of attitudes like comment #76 that we still need social justice movements. Because oppressors still feel so entitled to get most of their/our own way most of the time that they/we feel comfortable threatening to abandon the oppressed and leave them to a life of poverty and hardship because the oppressors are absolutely unwilling to see the oppressed as full and equal human beings under any circumstances. "Do what I tell you to or GTFO, b**ch, N*****, etc." How long have the oppressed been hearing this...and kept fighting anyway?

I love how the glenn sacks people here do not cuss, nor call any of you men haters flat out. they complain that its not fair. Yet, the feminists are flat out calling us women haters because we dont want to be targeted as a whole? that doesnt make any sense. Also the feminists here are rejoicing that men have "castration anxiety". that makes you happy?

so lets recap

the men dont want to be targeted unfairly so they complain

the women are HAPPY men are upset... What if I said im happy women are hurt when they get beat? you would so hate me for that. there is a line, and you are walking so close to being the people you claim to hate. hate breeds hate.

go a head and call me silly names and be happy I took care to post here. bottom line is; the more you run around throwing things into our faces, the less likely we will want to, or even care about what you want.

Look you are entitled to your opinion on Sacks, I just don't happen to share it. If you have read through the comment section then you know what his supporters are like. I will not ever find agreement with people that get cheap thrills demeaning women at every turn. They have also engaged in racism, classism, and homophobia. There can be nothing positive gained from this.They have polluted my blog with their foulness all the while decrying that I have chosen to delete some of their most disgusting commentary. As I have repeatedly said these infestations are not about conversations they are about whining what about the mehnz and ignoring the ways in which the isms interact to create people as other. Disagreement is one thing but lying post after post while they spew their hateful rhetoric is another.

Wow. Just wow. I started reading some of the comments, and at first I thought 'Awesome, what a great commenting community - they really have the whole satire thing down!'. And then I realized they were serious.This is my first visit to this blog, but just wanted to say, Renee, keep up the good work. It is sad when people's first reaction to ads against DV are 1) this leaves out male victims so it's bad and 2) this is offensive to non-abusers.For 1), any, and I mean any, campaign about any rights issue anywhere draws attention to one specific issue and not all groups. Anti-DV-against-women ads do not highlight the plight of the homeless, either. Or the abuse of immigrant workers. Or the genocide in Darfur. THAT'S OK. It is not trivializing other struggles to try to raise awareness of one particular struggle.For 2) this is ridiculous. First, because it doesn't say a thing about all men, it has one little boy. This also ties in to the 'this will terrify my daughters' rhetoric. The ads are presenting *examples* that are designed to force people to think about the horror that is DV (in this case, directed against women, but in general as well). Examples are not the same as sweeping generalizations about the population as a whole. But I would love to hear what these commenters would suggest as an alternative advertising strategy that does not use any examples of men or women perpetrating or being victims of abuse.

How many ads do you see with lines like "my girlfriend beats me and society calls me a p***y if I complain"? Men are getting tired not by the violence awareness, but it's one-sideness in its presentation. Also, no organization would spend this amount of money and coverage on just ONE boy. The boy is obviously symbolic of something. As another poster brought up, would it fly if an ad showed a black boy saying when I grow up I will rob someone? Of course not! The majority of blacks do not rob people, so that generalization would be offensive. I bet most people in favor of those ads would not be in favor of the racial example I gave above, proving the bias.

"If you have read through the comment section then you know what his supporters are like. I will not ever find agreement with people that get cheap thrills demeaning women at every turn."

If you read through the comment section then YES, you will know what his supporters are like. They are respectfully, and rightfully, defensive. The comments made by those opposing you have neither been demeaning nor hateful towards women. Men are now forced to defend themselves against people like you daily because they are forced into a corner with all of those men who have made mistakes. You tear apart men for being rapists and "wife beaters," and refuse to acknowledge the fact that not all men fall into your few catagories. Yes, there are men who rape women and beat their wives, as well as women who falsely accuse men of rape and beat their husbands. Not all men are "deadbeats" or rapists. And as for viewing all Glenn Sacks supporters as "polluting your blog with their foulness all the while decrying that you have chosen to delete some of their most disgusting commentary," I would read over some of these comments again. YOUR supports are the ones using foul language and personal attacks on men, while Glenn's supports have not used such language or attacks on you. Your opening statement is full of cussing, bad-mouthing men, and personal attacks on men. Calling their commentary "akin to finding a mouse turd in the bottom of a bowl from which you have been eating," is a sign of your overwhelming immaturity and hatred towards men. You are in no way a supporter of equal rights for all people, you are selfish in your conquest to make women the focus of all that is good, and men of all that is evil. Your selfishness shines through to me as childish and immature, and your pursuit to convince people that woman are still degraded daily is sad. I am a woman living in a world that hands me scholarships for being born female, while the male next to me gets denied a job to a woman less suitable because the law says that is the way it should be. Forgive me for my intolerance to society these days.

@Anon85The comments made by those opposing you have neither been demeaning nor hateful towards women.

What the comments that called me a whore, skank, cunt, fascist? How about the ones that accused me of abusing my children?

Noo how could I ever confuse any of that for polite conversation? Don't talk to me about respect. You and your crew are pollutants. I would much rather hear someone say the word fuck from time to time than engage in the obvious woman hatred that you people seem to thrive on.

So if your are offended by my unladylike language you can leave my blog. Don't ever try and tell me what I can and cannot say on my space. Oh in case I have not been direct enough gather up your fellow hate swilling asshats and fuck the hell off

I do not hate woman, nor am I "thriving" off woman hatred. Do not name me as a woman hater because I oppose you. I do not agree with those who called you a skank, whore, and anything of that sort. Those comments were disrespectful. I am not defending those who stoop to that level. Personal attacks are completely unecessary, and I do disagree with them disrespecting you on your space. But I am not trying to disrespect you, I am voicing my opinion on this matter. And the start of the name calling and "pollution," which you so named it, began with you. Referring to "us" as "swilling asshats" is in no way better than someone naming you something. If you wish to recieve respect from others, do not throw around disrespect first.

"NUMEROUS claims that we feminists label all men abusers, when no such thing has been implied or stated. YOU are making the "abusers = all men" connection, which is interesting indeed."

uhhh, look at what started this? men WILL kill their wife, and women WILL die by their husbands...

Glenn sacks and many others didn't like the ads saying ALL men WILL do that. cause the ads say that. read word for word, they say "WILL", not quote the ODDS.

Glad I could finally tune you into whats been going on here. I thought maybe the entire issue at hand would have clued you in... Anything else you need walked by the hand?

"An accusation that Renee has "penis envy," "got herself" raped, and is like Hitler (4)." I remember the got raped part, if you took that person as them being serious... you have problems, it was a vent haha.

and as for the comments that were too hateful to keep up, its only her word that they were, she offers ZERO evidence into that. how do we know what was there? cause some pissed off woman said so? read anything shes saying, shes mad and showing it.

as for the mini-hitler thing, I agree honestly. a group of people "attacked" another group of people. the group who were attacked protested the attack, and now Renee is attacking the group who is DEFENDING. sooo, yes, the group who got their feelings hurt by the ads (people are allowed to be offended, you keep saying its allowed...) so they defended. but, she is attacking the group who feels violated.

If I ran an ad saying ALL women are baby killers cause of abortion, and the women who are against abortion became offended, I would be a huge asshole to attack them and tell them to stop thinking with their vaginas and to shut the fuck up.

"the ads saying ALL men WILL do that. cause the ads say that. read word for word, they say "WILL", not quote the ODDS."

That. is. a. lie.

It does not say anything about ALL MEN. Nor is it literally claiming that that particular young boy will become an abuser in real life. It's a fucking advertisement. Do you think all commercials depict true-to-life scenarios as well? Newsflash: the lady shilling Tide may actually use Gain in her own home!I didn't think people were this inept at interpreting media messages.

@ANON 87 And the start of the name calling and "pollution," which you so named it, began with you.

Look on the original post regarding the issue of the advertisement no such name calling occurred. The Dear MRA infestation post is a response to the vitriol spewed on that thread. As for receiving respect, do not forget that you have no right to comment here, and this is something you and buddies seem to forget. I have been more than lenient considering someof the ridiculousness that has occurred here the last two days. As for making a judgement that I am biased or only promote womens issues, clearly you have not glanced through the over 500 posts on this blog. Not only do I regularly critique feminism. I have spoken out against male rape, highlighted the times when feminism has ignored violence against men, pointed out instances of sexism against men etc and etc. But you go ahead keep on with your assumptions. It is clear to me that you MRA's and Glenn Sacks fans are only interested in one thing, pushing an agenda of male hegemony.

the first artical you did, the posts by the "MRA"was a lot of links to credible places stating men are victims just as much as women. but the women here wanted to ignore that fact. so it spunoff from that. I agree this is out of control, but it's just fun now.

want my honest thought? I have no idea what your past blogs were, I skimmed over them and saw some that might be interesting ( I will go read them). However, first impressions last, and I was turned onto this because of a Glenn Sacks link, he used NO offensive speech against you, so I honestly expected a well thought out debate between both of you. However, after reading about how you were calling me someone who thinks with my penis blah blah blah, you honestly think you deserve respect?

You had a PERFECT chance to have A LOT of Glenn Sacks reads come check out your site. But their "welcome" message was one of hate twards us. So the events that followed were typical in my eyes. I really do wish we could have had a great debate or even teamed up. How awesome would a feminist and (well whats a word for a male rights?) join forces? It's been poven in ANYTHING that when people unite a lot ore gets done.

just now all of us here (yes, including you Renee) are now resorting to middle-school tactics of "cooties" and name calling.

And how much are you willing to bet that when Glenn makes a post on his blog about this, he will not only be polite, but condem the people who came here and gave you problems? I will bet any amount of money on that. he proved that time and time again. That is how he gained over 55,000 users a day to his site. If you yourself wish to get the word out, try that! this is NOT an attack, just saying.

"Yes I meant to use the word infestation because that essentially is what you are. When you enter a feminist blog your commentary reminds of cockroaches, swarming everywhere disgusting everyone with your presence."

Wow. Nice dehumanization you got going there.

I won't include a list of ugly slurs that dehumanize and objectify women, or african americans.

But I think you should stand up proud as a bigot and a sexist and a chauvinist.

You had a PERFECT chance to have A LOT of Glenn Sacks reads come check out your site.

Again you are assuming that I would want a person who reads Glenn Sacks commenting here. I didn't link to him for a reason. Until you and your crew came along I have never had reason to question leaving my blog an open space for all to comment. We discuss the issues passionately and with respect.

You may not have liked the tone of my original post but it was directed specifically at the MRA crowd in reference to their/your treatment of women. It was not an implication of all men and I made that very clear.

People who have difficulty acknowledging their privilege whether it be male, gender, cis, race, class or ability do not do well on this blog. Raising awareness means discussing privilege in meaningful ways that never occurs with MRA..The comment section on the posts have proven the aforementioned statement.

I am taking my precious time to respond to you, only because thus far you have been reasonable, but that is not my over all experience with the people that associate themselves with the MRA movement or Glenn Sacks.

@MikeLook the MRA movement has proven itself to be clearly anti woman period.

Politically I am a womanist which is actually quite different from what you probably view as "traditional" feminism. What the MRA have failed to understand as that there are many different kinds of feminism.

Look here is an example. Many third wave feminists did not speak out about the death of Sean Bell. Womanists across the internet spoke very passionately about his death. We believed that this is very much a womans issues. You see, when I see the death of a young black man, needlessly by the police, I think of the men in my life, that I love that could be subjected to such cruelty and injustice. It is a woman's issues. That is only one example but there are countless.

The MRA's have no internal critique and all I see is repeated group think. How can you speak about mens rights and not talk about the different ways in which sexuality, ability, class and race effect the male experience? None of that happens because it is all geared at attacking women. This is one of the biggest issues I have with your movement. It's erasure of bodies that matter in the desire to push misogyny.

well speaking for me, I want things to be equal for us all, I call myself a mens right person because of the experiences I have had being mistreated because I a man. that is nature however, women want womens rights, men want mens, blacks want black, cancer patients fight for cancer fundings. people fight for rights of only what effect them. when is the last time you saw a breast cancer person fighting for lung cancer? it happens, but its rare. humans are selfish...

I opted to fight for mens rights more than womens because I see more going on against men (probaly cause the media, tv and movies are anti-male a lot more than anti-female, and media plays a huge role in our perspective). but, I have fought for womens rights, fought for certain things that were unfair to women. so to me, this is a HUMANS rights issue, so all humans should fight as one force, black, white, men, women, you name it.

so in your eyes, if mens rights people are against women, then what "group" of mens activists do you see from your angle as people who just want equality?

and to give my thoughts on this DART crap. yes, I feel it is targeting men as a whole, because of their wording. I know people tell me to not take it that way, but I ake it the way it is said to me.

But alas, this arguement will not die till later this month when the ads are removed. it reminds me of the arguement, does "slutty" clothing make a girl a slut?

A lot of women say "no", while men say "yes". Women who dress that way give a "message" saying "look at my goods". but they turn around and say "but its just fasion". both side of the argument are valid, life is about perspective. and my perspective with DART ads is that they used VERY strong and very percise words, so I took it the way they said it.

I expect peole to comment me saying "deal with it" or other hurtful things... but whatever, my voice shall not be squelched. Nor will yours, welcome to free speech and offending classes.

@Mikewomen want womens rights, men want mens, blacks want black, cancer patients fight for cancer fundings. people fight for rights of only what effect them. when is the last time you saw a breast cancer person fighting for lung cancer? it happens, but its rare. humans are selfish...

This is patently false. Clearly you have not heard about intersectionality. This is one of the greatest things to come out of anti racist/womanist/third wave feminists. In this you will find the theory (which I agree with) that you must look at the isms and how they interact to create someone as "other". The more you deconstruct a position the better the analysis. For example looking at my life, I am a straight/middle class/straight/WOC. Singularly none of the adjectives would describe me but together they give a picture of my existence. Thus when we examine an issue we try to include as many "characteristics" as possible. This is why you will find on this blog that I discuss issues of disability/ GBLTQI/racism/sexism/classism etc because all of the isms are related and they all work in tandem with each other. Intersectinality is an extremely huge part of feminist theorizing and it is something that does not get enough media play. This is why I pointed out to you that MRA's have a one sided movement. Even if I were to buy the idea that men were uniquely oppressed to not deal with the ways that gay men are stigmatized, or MOC are racialized is problematic because it erases their experience and creates the white straight privileged male as the default experience.

so in your eyes, if mens rights people are against women, then what "group" of mens activists do you see from your angle as people who just want equality?

I most closely will identify with men who believe in and practice intersectionality. Without that you cannot have true equality.

I believe the problem is that MRA's think in universals and that is highly problematic as there is no universal truth. Unless you are willing to consider the experience of another you are "othering" and expressing privilege.

What a fascinating read and series of comments- well some comments are downright obtuse. What became clear to me is that to further the dialogue we need more willingness to accept and each others thoughts and feelings. Yes kindergarten in nature, but what I am trying to get across is more willingness to let the opposite view in as opposed to stomp it out with generalizations. Renee has steadfastly put forth concepts of male privilege and using that privilege to effect disparity as it relates particularly to violence against women, and men should contemplate that point and evaluate it as a valid perception that women share with deep conviction and concern about men. Similarly, we should accept and understand that men's opinions stemming from these ads and are offensive and discriminatory is also valid, and not to be reduced to meaningless. Instead of trying to control and define what is meant by how the other gender feels, and tell them they are wrong for their views, we need to work from a place that doesn't start with denial or some other tool to undermine the other. I would summarize these posts as people just wanting to be heard and listened to, and validated for that want- a simple human want which is the genesis for further exploration and understanding. Perhaps a bit simplistic, but with the intense display of fervor in the written pugilism, perhaps a good idea for all.

I'd like to point out that there are men who embrace feminism: Lundy Bancroft, Michael Flood, and the others involved in Men Can Stop Rape and similar organizations.

You see, they recognize that men are in a position of power---and domestic violence and rape ARE about power and control. And so they accept that view and that they have male privilege, and white male privilege, and they use it to be a part of the solution. They don't attack.

As can be expected though, "men" called them faggots...so, a man can't embrace feminism without other "men" thinking he is too weak. Those are issues men have with themselves. And I believe that it takes the bravest man to be a feminist.

And don't try to flip and say feminist shouldn't be including men, that has been done from the start..especially with Womanism. It is an incorrect notion that feminists want equality in everything. They have asked for equity.

And it was only mentioned in one comment, but people are forgetting that there is so much more to all of this than the physical wife beating (or husband beating). Domestic violence is a pattern and can exist on many realms: financial, psychological, emotional...take a look at this wheel. There is no domestic violence without power and control. There may be "incidences" of violence...

And what term is there for male activism?--in the past, it's been called chauvinism/machismo--but no, seriously, you'd have to come up with another word..masculinism---no, no that won't work if you believe that GENDER is defined by society, and SEX is determined at birth.

As you said, Renee, it is very difficult for those who are privileged to see the other side of the fence.

~~~Women accounted for 85% of the victims of intimate partner violence, men for approximately 15%.(Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003)~~~http://www.dvrc-or.org/domestic/violence/resources/C61/

In a 1995-1996 study conducted in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, nearly 25% of women and 7.6% of men were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner/acquaintance at some time in their lifetime (based on survey of 16,000 participants, equally male and female).

Conclusion: many more women than men are assaulted by an intimate partner. These particular numbers don't tell us about the gender of the perpetrator, but more women than men are victims of domestic violence.

In 2000, 1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. In recent years, an intimate partner killed approximately 33% of female murder victims and 4% of male murder victims.

Conclusion: if you're female, you are much more likely to be murdered by your spouse than if you are male.

# 84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female.# Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers# 50% of offenders in state prison for spousal abuse had killed their victims. Wives were more likely than husbands to be killed by their spouses: wives were about half of all spouses in the population in 2002, but 81% of all persons killed by their spouse.

So, not only are women more likely to be abused by their partners, they are much more likely to be murdered by them; women's violence against men is much less likely to result in serious injury or death.

Really, if Glenn Sacks is so concerned about violence against men, he should start organizing-- shelters, ad campaigns, lobbying, the works. These ads depict a statistical reality, (especially since black women are more likely to be murdered by their partners than white women), and MRA whining doesn't change that.

Re: child abuse. Probably one of the reasons this ad campaign doesn't target child abusers is that pretty much everybody agrees that child abuse is bad. When women are abused, however, somehow there's always a 'she-asked-for-it' kind of excuse.

Should male victims of DV have resources to help them out of their relationship and counseling to help them start over? Absolutely. But recognition and resources don't need to come at the expense of female victims-- there seem to be a lot of MRAs out there with nothing to do but comment on a blog they never read-- you guys have a giant donor/organizer base already. Good luck to you.

Anon@85"Yes, there are men who rape women and beat their wives, as well as women who falsely accuse men of rape and beat their husbands."

This is like saying "yes, there is AIDS and cancer, but there is also Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and Batten Disease, what about them??" Obviously all disease causes suffering. But we don't argue that as many resources should be allocated for fighting Batten disease as for cancer, do we? For the simple reason that it is less widespread. Obviously these less rare diseases cause as much suffering on an individual basis than the more common diseases, but there is a good reason why more resources are spent on more widespread diseases. And it's not as if rare diseases do not have their own campaigns asking for help and funding. However, when a campaign against AIDS does not include as a small part of it, say, attention to Progeria? Who complains? Because it's an AIDS CAMPAIGN.

This is why many feminists are mistrustful of MRAs. A lot of them seem to say the blanket suffering of men from domestic violence is as widespread as the blanket suffering of women from domestic violence, and this is simply not true. See post 105. Or in the case of Anon@85, that as many women falsely accuse men of rape as there are numbers of men beating women, or men raping women. If violence against men is such a concern for these people, why don't they get together and raise the funding for anti-male-DV ads, instead of criticizing ones that women have gotten together and raised funding for to help themselves? (I disagree that these ads paint all men as being abusers. I think they imply that various men can and do grow up to be abusers, and various women can and do grow up to be victims. If people make the assumption that the ads refer to all men, why is that automatically the fault of the people producing the ads? why would it be necessary to include a disclaimer that "no we don't believe that all men grow up to be abusers"? If I perceived these ads as making that claim, I too would condemn them).

Again, I will say, you must have knowledge of how stats are gathered. There are qualitative and quantitative studies. You must know the intent of the study, whether is leads to new knowledge or adds to existing knowledge. You must know the funder of the study and the background of the researcher.

You can't just pull a random study out of the clouds and expect it to have clout. I suggest taking the two studies, one about men as victims, one about women as victims, look at the sample size, look at the type of study and the other things I have mentioned...and go for there.

There have been decades of research about women as victims (studies done by men, since they have held the power and control).

Blame the stats.

I would also like to add, and I'm certain it has already been stated--that men keep complaining about how they are depicted in sitcoms and abused by women. That may be the case, but the previews to the movies we see nearly every day, is about men brutally killing other men, and sometimes women. MEN are making these movies.

you dont hear us complain that women are making them, we just complain tey are being MADE

everyone is more "okay" with seeing men being hurt than women, including the human men that make the movies, they are part of that. it needs to change, then yes, even the people who make movies will change also. its called a downward spiral.

so the woman who made the porno with two 14 year old girls, is that okay for us to watch, becaseu it was a woman who made it? no, even women are against it. it doenst matter who makes it, its still wrong

@Mike The point is that railing away on feminist blogs about the representation of males in the media is pointless because women do not control the media. If you believe you have a truly actionable cause of justice you need to be forcefully be protesting thus in charge, and that would be your fellow men.The idea that women are responsible for this is ridiculous. Using it as an excuse to spread your anti-woman vitriol is a straw mans argument at best.

Geez...I'm just pointing out the people in power have the POWER to do something about it, primarily. We are not OKAY with seeing anyone hurt. Again, feminism has been AGAINST war, AGAINST other atrocities happening WORLDWIDE.

I'm very sorry to read your post. Prior to a hospital stay I used to post at your blog quite frequently.

The truth here, available by googling the site, is that Renee never mentioned Glenn Sacks until a day or two ago, then excoriated him in the worse possible terms without posting any single piece of evidence to back her up.

She has clearly not read Sacks, and that IS clear since so much of what she wrote about him is so easily contradicted by reading a brief sample of his posts.

Renee has been lazy and sexist in her attacks on Sacks here, and she was called on it.

If either of you were to pick a month of Glenn Sacks at random, and read all of his posts there, you would be embarrassed at what Renee wrote.

One feminist blogger, Lisa Kansas, at punkass blog, wrote a very similar post about a month ago. She had the intellectual honesty to read more of Sacks and interact with his readers.

And since then she has authored several articlescritical of MRAs and posted at Glenn Sacks' site.

MRAs! Those dudes are hilarious. Have they told you that men pay 120% of all income taxes yet? I love that one. Makes me LOL every time. Especially when they couple it with an assertion that men are better at math and logic. :D

The Patient Education Center article is simply repeating the information from another article (nice try), and that article plus the UNH article specify that the studies were on cases of reciprocal violence. If you had bothered to actually read the articles instead of blindly posting whatever *looked* credible, you would see that both Murray's and Whittaker's studies conclude that women are more likely to be injured in domestic violence incidents.

Unfortuantely, this sounds more like a childish angry outburst from a child trying to justify why it's okay to call certain people certain words.

I would like to see you post some more intelligent posts concerning more important topics, instead of what some people on the internet think of you. I'd rather read something thoughtfully laid out in a coherent discussion then petty mud slinging.

"If you had bothered to actually read the articles instead of blindly posting whatever *looked* credible, you would see that both Murray's and Whittaker's studies conclude that women are more likely to be injured in domestic violence incidents"

I believe the claim on the table is that men suffer a third of the serious injuries, so they should be allocated roughly a third of the governmental resources, not 0%. We all agree that women suffer the majority of injuries.

Do you have a source you find credible that puts the third statistic so low as to be insignificant, which would justify the 0% of governmental funding policies that some states (like california, until just a few weeks ago) have?Chris Marshall

This is just pure hate from feminists, you have achieved equality, all that is left is hate and violence that you are trying to use against men, 99% of whom are good men, good fathers who have made the world in which you live and made HALF of you ! Your violent words have started a backlash, family women and ordinary women will join us too, what you say is nothing to do with the average woman, making families stronger is

I have seen this posting and have contacted the Urban League concerned. I cannot believe that these MRA types would do this - accuse someone of falsely accusing someone else of stating untruths. Go read for yourself and if you can email here about this: info@cul.org

"If you're not a woman-beater, there is no reason for you to be offended by efforts to end violence against women."

Sarah, the issue is not violence "against women" per se, but just violence. I shall take the liberty to amend your statement as follows:

"If you're not a person who commits DV, there is no reason to be offended by efforts to end DV".

Do you understand why my edition is an improvement upon your original?

The only step remaining, would be to redesign the ad campaign to reflect a more non-ideological, gender-sensitive view of the objective state of the world. (i.e. both male and female subjects featured.)

I want to add more to my post. In this post on Sack's website a man (presumably because 'he' speaks of 'his' wife) is proud of his wife for refusing to allow a possible victim of domestic violence the ability to get out of her lease. She (this wife) went on to say several 'un'professional things to the agency (assuming it was Urban League of Columbus Ohio) concerning Joe Biden and false accusers. I emailed the Urban League and passed this info along to them so they have it in writing and can connect the dots in case legal action might be possible against this leasing company/apartment. I know where I live, dv victims (whether or not there has been a conviction) have the right to break leases, take leaves of absence from work without penalty and recently were granted the right to be able to call in for so many days per month in order to deal with court issues, moving etc. It just disgusts me that these MRA's and their supporters can do these things and get away with it.

I have figured out the best course of action with these bozos. I will continue reading Sacks' blog, however I will not post. If I ever see another comment like this I will email the appropriate agency (or call) and forward the information to them. Hopefully if enough of these rabid MRA's get caught doing these immoral activities, something will be done. I hope that CUL will work in political circles now and create a law that will protect victims of dv and enable them to break leases without consequence. Although I am sure that the Urban League upon hearing the unprofessional opinions of this supposed professional will simply pursue legal action against the apartment complex. Who knows? Maybe this 'un'professional leasing agent will not have a job much longer. That would be a very good thing. Or then again - maybe not. Because then she would have all the time in the world like her MRA husband to spend browsing the 'Net looking for others who have been victimized by all of us mean women.

@New FriendFirst let me commend you for your action. Her callous disregard for the safety of a potential domestic violence victim is hardly astounding because she is married to an MRA. Women daily collude with these nuts undermining their own safety in the process. I personally cannot stand to read any more of their disgusting anti-woman propaganda. They cannot be reasoned with and are a human cancer as far as I am concerned. Look at how they have infested this post with their lies.

They claim that Sacks is so moderate but when you look at the base that are his supporters the opposite is quite true. He could tell these men and their colluding wives that this kind of behavior is unacceptable, but then again he is not interested in equality. He is interested in promoting male hegemony.

I am quite certain that one day one of his readers is seriously going to maim, or murder a woman and he will be directly at fault for not having the decency to speak out against their disgusting hatred.

@135 they can return to wherever they came from without your help. It is your ridiculous crowd that should be grateful as I have allowed you to comment on space even though you have fouled it with your disgusting commentary. Simply leave, you are neither welcome, nor wanted.

Firstly, I'd like to state my opinion that only ONE of the ads shouldn't be up there: the one with the little boy. This may seem weird to you, but I'll explain my thinking. When you show an image of a young girl saying she will one day be murdered by her husband, it looks (at least to me) to be more focused on the aspect of women being abused. The other ad is focused on the men being abusers. It would seem the latter is more of a negative message, and it's being perceived by the MRA folks as misandrist, while the ad with the girl has the main focus on "it is wrong to abuse women, and it happens much too often," while the subject of men being abusers (the "by my husband" part of it) is secondary. The less negativity you present, the less you will receive in return. While it's easy to agree with the statement that a disgusting number of women are abused (often by men in their lives) every day, the blame-strategy of pointing out that men do most of the abusing might upset the men who are actually innocent, and feel unfairly vilified, because you're just pointing the finger. It's probably better for a cause not to have a bunch of angry people against it, no? Not unless all you really want is to feel special and parade around crying about how you're the victim, you're being victimized, woe is you, the world is a bully and it's gonna beat you up after school today. And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in thinking you're not those kinds of people.

I've noticed that the comments AGAINST the MRA guys have a much more angry, I might even venture to say hateful tone, while claiming that the other side is being the outrageous, hateful one. I think I'm missing something. Maybe you feel as if they're being patronizing by acting unemotional, which may be just mistakenly perceived, or may in fact be happening. Regardless I'd like to say that I am neither angry nor patronizing, in case you might make that mistake.

(Also, my apologies for the sloppy construction of my thoughts. I'm dreadfully hungry, and it's distracting me a great deal.)

I have just seen that I have been banned from posting at Sacks' website due to my ip. I know this to be true because I used an ip anonymizer (sp?) and was able to post. If his side was so interested in fairness and the showing of all points, why would I be banned? Simply because I am stirring things up, angering these MRAs with my supposed anti-male hate speech. I do not hate men. I hate BAD men, there is a difference. I have a brother, step-brother, half-brother and they are all good men. My landlord is a man and he is a good man. I work with several men and they are all for the most part good men (sometimes we don't see eye to eye on political issues, but that happens to everyone, it has happened to my best friend and I as well). The difference here is that while I and these people may not see eye to eye on political issues (such as gay rights, womens rights, mens rights, taxation, welfare, etc), this does not mean that we cannot care about the other person and their views.

I just find it amazing that these men and their supporters (such as second wives) can actually believe themselves.

Thes emen want these ads completely pulled. They have stated that there are not ads out there targetting women who abuse, yet I have seen and heard them with my own eyes and ears. The most recent one was absolutely shocking because you could only hear it. It started with the woman/mother yelling at the child and then escalated to god only knows what (sirens indicated the child was being taken to either hospital or morgue and mother was arrested). Now I as a non-abusive mother could say this ad is targetting all mothers whether they are good or bad and according to MRA logic, I would be justified in doing so. But according to them I would not be justified (as witnessed by their own words in their pages) because as a mother I am more prone to abuse my child.

So by using logic, more men are prone to abuse children because there are more female victims than there are male victims. So who is right or justified? The purpose behind these ads was to simply bring to light the issue of children affected by domestic violence. And by sheer numbers alone, men are more often the perpetrators of dv than women. So, it stands to reason that these ads would show these chidlren the way they were shown, with the female child being a victim and the male child the possible future perp.

@New Friend you are more than welcome to engage but it really is pointless with MRA. They are only interested in projecting lies and it will get you nowhere. What about the mehnz is all you will get in return.

Read what you have written and what Glenn Sacks has wrote. One of you comes across as sane and the other does not.

PROTIP: Glenn Sacks has facts, I see a rant here.

The difference between an argument and a debate is that one is civilized and one is not.I would highly suggest a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary as well, proper English where the words mean their definition allows one to convey their thoughts. To say one thing while meaning another is the easiest way to create misconceptions and baseless accusations when one posts a rebuttal.

Now then, let the games begin - how will this comment be taken? From what I have seen my gender and sexual preference will be questioned, ad hominem attacks will be used, and generally logic will go on a long holiday as posters ignore their own behavior when criticizing mine. This post may be deleted due to "Tyranny of the Majority", or ignored.

I wait with bated breath to see if this forum is as pleasant and thoughtful as that of Glenn Sacks.

@Chris yes, and I know I have not had the time to get back to you for which I sincerely apologize. The election, moderation, and prep work I had to do for the conversation on the BBC today has left me with no opportunity to give your question the attention that it deserves. Womanist Musings has always been an open space for conversation. I am not in the habit of deleting comments that I do not agree with. I encourage people to engage in open and honest conversation because I firmly believe that is the only way that change will happen.

In fact I allowed conversation and commentary that should probably have been removed because it made this space "unsafe" for many. It is a tough line to balance, while I want someone to be able to freely express themselves I do want someone to feel triggered by the conversations either. At any rate if you look through the other posts on the blog you will see that I have rarely deleted commentary.

Renee, i don't always agree with what you say but i would be glad to give you a can of raid for the blog if i could to get rid of all of the disgusting comments being left by the MRA's. you are in the right to delete and not reply to them. sincerely a fellow feminist

I can't believe I've finally managed to get all the way through these hateful comments! By the way, these MRA's claiming that they're not misogynist, only standing up for teh poor menz rights is something akin to the Aryan Nation asserting it isn't racist, it's just standing up for the obviously oppressed white race.

I wish feminist would stop making the claim that MRA advocates want to silence women, or that we hate women, or want to steal their things or anything so ridiculous as that.

MRA is plainly and simply the male equivalent to feminism.

Now, when feminism started most people dismissed it as ridiculous, and had problems with it that were completely unrelated to its cause ("oh they're all lesbians" and other such crap).

Similarly, the world (and feminists in particular) are making the same sort of attack on MRA.

Are you people really so blind as to say that there are NO issues facing men? Not even for example, the issue that being a stay at home husband is stigmatised? (surely as feminists, you'll give me that much). For, as an MRA, that's one of my concerns.

Now, one of MRAs concerns is that extreme feminist go too far, and this extreme feminism has led to negative stereotyping, and hatred of men.

Even in this very article the author accuses basically all men of being responsible for "violence, raping, murdering, exploitation and marginalization" of women since the beginning of time.

If you're not an extreme feminist with the view that men are all women hating, or women exploiting, (or similar) then i have no problem with you.

Please udnerstand that this is simply a battle for equality. You're fighting for the women's side, we're fighting for the men's side, but we are all fighting for equality.

Is that really so hard to accept?

Eibhear just above me said that "MRAs claiming they're not misogynist only stand up for men's rights" is akin to Aryan nation saying it's not racist, it's just fighting the opression of the whites.

If you're going to use that logic, then all feminists are sexist, because they're standing up for women's rights. That's a completely unfair view, because it's based on the assumption that no men have issues.

Here's another one, men are more likely to commit suicide at ALL ages. This isn't a figure that's been refuted by feminism ever, so let's go with that.

That's a men's issue, and we would like something to be done about it.

If this threatens you in some way, I am sorry, but i only wish to combat inequality.

I am not saying that femimism doesn't have a purpose.

We are both fighting for the same thing. We are just doing it from different sides.

I would be very pleased, and happy to reply if anyone wishes to contact me dhanratty090@gmail.com

By the way, these MRA's claiming that they're not misogynist, only standing up for teh poor menz rights is something akin to the Aryan Nation asserting it isn't racist, it's just standing up for the obviously oppressed white race.Odd. MRAs say they don't like those DART ads because assert the notion that only men commit and they "are trying to maintain the right to abuse" but calling MRAs racists by comparing them to the Aryan Nation is just fine right?

Like Anon 49 says there are fair minded MRAs and there are nutcase MRAs. There are fair minded women's rights activists (WRAs) and there are nutcase WRAs (thought I find it odd that Anon 49 distiguishes extreme feminism but not extreme MRAs).

What I think is telling is that many of the MRAs that troll this blog, and from what I can tell having read quite a bit of Glenn Sacks' blog, they have this mistaken belief that there has been absolutely no attention given to female-on-male or female-on-female violence on the part of social scientists.

It is not "anti-male" to point out that in terms of numbers, it's just a stubborn fact that more men abuse, rape, sexually assault, and murder women than women do men or women do women--it's anti-abuser, anti-rapist, anti-murder.

While almost any feminist I can think of will gladly admit that men are often portrayed negatively in the media, I can't think of any MRA trolls here who will agree that women are also portrayed negatively in the media.

Also telling (and horribly disheartening, and sad) is the assertion in one comment that women get raped because they "put themself out there", wherever "there" is. This betrays a deep ignorance of the statistics regarding rape. The sad fact of the matter is that 75% of women are raped in their own homes by someone they know (either a friend, relative, or acquaintance.)

As someone who works in the sciences, it also bears repeating here that most of the people who conduct research into domestic violence, rape, and other abuse stats are not angry feminists making up numbers because they have an agenda: they're by and large men who are part of the often conservative science establishment!

Don't blame feminists and women for rape stats that are unflattering to men, blame the men who commit rapes, and if you really must, the many male social scientists who conduct the research.

I actually feel sorry for the MRAs who aren't extremist and religious fundies in disguise, who simply want to make room for a men's rights lobby on issues such as violence against men and suicide risk for men, because for every one of them who has commented here (or anywhere else on the internet that I can find), there are virtually hundreds of wackos who are dragging their cause through the extreme rightist mud.

@ #48Your said:"MRA is plainly and simply the male equivalent to feminism."

Ha ha ha ha ha, ROLFL...'cause, we all know that white men are so oppressed! That's classic, MRA is the equivalent of feminism, ha ha ha ha. Just like white-surpremacy is the equivalent to civil rights advocacy.

"Are you people really so blind as to say that there are NO issues facing men? Not even for example, the issue that being a stay at home husband is stigmatised?"

Did you even read the post, these aren't the types of things that MRA's are interested in. Don't go blaming feminists for the narrow gender roles assigned to men. (Although I suppose asking you "not to blame feminists" would be like asking the sun not to shine, because MRA's blame feminists for EVERYTHING.) Just like the draft, neither feminists nor women created this oppressive and unfair system. And no one is denying the narrow gender roles prescribed to both men and women. You seem to have gotten all your talking points from MRA trolls, because you are very misinformed as to what feminism is actually about. Seeing as you know so little about feminism, you see, feminists have always fought for a wider definition of gender, and feminists have always fought against the narrowly defined gender roles that are enforced through patriarchy. Feminists have been fighting for decades for these things, and it's the reason for the larger variety of gender roles that women currently have today. Whereas the MRA's, instead of working on issues like these, MRA's would rather sit around and blame feminists and women, take rights away from women, and generally try to ensure that every inch of their white male privilege is protected. That's why MRA's are trolls...they don't really CARE at all about these issues. They only use these standard set of talking points, predictably against feminists and women.

And believe me when I say, we've heard it all from the likes of these MRA trolls. We know exactly, what the MRAs are all about.

By the way your comment it so full of MRA talking points that you don't even realize how ridiculous it sounds when you try to imply that you are not an MRA.

Like I said, these are the same people who will look at FBI and DOJ rape and DV statistics and deny that said statistics exist...or they will blame it on the "vast feminist conspiracy". Even on this thread there are MRAs continually denying statistics that are displayed in plain view on the DOJ and FBI websites. Heh, I guess I'm not surprised then that MRA's would find ally's in people like Glenn Beck and other right-wing nut-jobs...they both have a disdain for facts and statistics!

I'd offer rebuttal to the rest of your comment but trying to discuss anything with an MRA is like trying to have an honest conversation with Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity...I just have to keep repeating to myself "do not feed the MRA trolls. do not feed the MRA trolls"

[url=http://www.julianafurs.com]Fur Reversibles[/url] are making a come back. Raincoats lined withSable and Chinchilla. Fur remodeling is huge. Antique garments are now recycled into glamorous coats. The typical age of a garment that isrestyled into modern fashion is 7 years.

After looking into a handful of the blog posts on your site, I honestly appreciate your way of blogging. I book marked it to my bookmark website list and will be checking back soon.Please check out my website as well and tell me what you think.

Can I just say what a comfort to discover someone who actually understands what they are talking about on the net. You certainly realize how to bring a problem to light and make it important. More people must check this out and understand this side of the story. I was surprised you're not more popular since you certainly have the gift.

Intense Debate Comments

About Me

I am the mother of two darling little boys that fill my life with hope. They have inspired me to help raise awareness of the issues that plague this little blue planet.
If you are looking for a blog that is all about how wonderful and rosy this world is, turn right because this space will not be for you. I am a committed humanist. I believe in the value of people over commodities. I believe in the human right to food, clothing, shelter, and education. I am pacifist, anti-racist, WOC. My truth may not be your truth, but I intend to speak it nonetheless.
Please feel free to direct questions or commentary womanistmusings@gmail.com